At 05:54 AM 5/4/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote:
why is increased anti-poverty spending so
important to you?
I'm not advocating spending,
Well, you managed to lambaste Republicans in several posts for not spending
enough
JDG
___
At 07:33 PM 5/2/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote:
Over the last few decades, *nobody* has prevented poverty from increasing
even
as the nation gains wealth.
If that's true, then why did you single out Republicans for criticism?
Moreover, if increased anti-poverty spending does not prevent poverty
On Tue, 03 May 2005 23:24:50 -0400, JDG wrote
why is increased anti-poverty spending so
important to you?
I'm not advocating spending, I'm advocating for doing a better job at
creating a social safety net and opportunities, in a country where one out of
six children lives in poverty. Our
On 5/2/05, Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2005 20:18:41 -0400, JDG wrote
Feel free to refer to the inconvenient figures you snipped without response
from my last message in your answer.
Past figures don't address today's problems unless we're limiting ourselves to
On 5/3/05, Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/2/05, Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 02 May 2005 20:18:41 -0400, JDG wrote
Feel free to refer to the inconvenient figures you snipped without
response
from my last message in your answer.
Past figures don't
- Original Message -
From: Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2005 3:03 PM
Subject: Re: Medicaid Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
On 5/3/05, Gary Denton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/2/05, Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED
On Mon, 02 May 2005 00:20:21 -0400, JDG wrote
At 09:11 PM 5/1/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote:
We have a president and Congress who are trying to make changes to Social
Security that would result in a decrease of benefits, by their own numbers.
How many notes do we have to hear before we can
At 09:11 PM 5/1/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote:
Programs? Medicaid (which pays for a third of all hospital births and
insures
25 million children) -- cut dramatically.
I'm curious as to what your source is for this.
Running some quick figures on government non-veterans, non-Medicare health
At 11:24 PM 5/1/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote:
We have a president and Congress who are trying to make changes to Social
Security that would result in a decrease of benefits, by their own
numbers.
How many notes do we have to hear before we can name that tune?
So, you believe that there
At 09:49 PM 5/1/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote:
Reducing benefits to the neediest while
snip
Can we tell them with a straight face that we are being good
stewards by passing legislation that will reduce their benefits?
What's your source for this? The plan the President presented last week
On Mon, 02 May 2005 00:59:35 -0400, JDG wrote
At 09:11 PM 5/1/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote:
Programs? Medicaid (which pays for a third of all hospital births and
insures
25 million children) -- cut dramatically.
I'm curious as to what your source is for this.
All you have to do it look
On 5/2/05, JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 09:49 PM 5/1/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote:
Reducing benefits to the neediest while
snip
Can we tell them with a straight face that we are being good
stewards by passing legislation that will reduce their benefits?
What's your source for
At 07:24 AM 5/2/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote:
Programs? Medicaid (which pays for a third of all hospital births and
insures
25 million children) -- cut dramatically.
I'm curious as to what your source is for this.
All you have to do it look at today's news about the budget before
On Mon, 02 May 2005 20:18:41 -0400, JDG wrote
Feel free to refer to the inconvenient figures you snipped without response
from my last message in your answer.
Past figures don't address today's problems unless we're limiting ourselves to
two ideological choices. I'm not going to start
On Sat, 30 Apr 2005 14:19:30 -0400, JDG wrote
At 10:32 PM 4/26/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote:
The same majority party that has been cutting the funding of programs that
preserve the lives of children is also anti-abortion.
Which programs are those? I'm sure that you must have a specific
At 09:11 PM 5/1/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote:
We have a president and Congress who are trying to make changes to Social
Security that would result in a decrease of benefits, by their own numbers.
How many notes do we have to hear before we can name that tune?
So, you believe that there should
On Mon, 02 May 2005 00:20:21 -0400, JDG wrote
At 09:11 PM 5/1/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote:
We have a president and Congress who are trying to make changes to Social
Security that would result in a decrease of benefits, by their own numbers.
How many notes do we have to hear before we can
At 10:32 PM 4/26/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote:
The same majority party that has been cutting the funding of programs that
preserve the lives of children is also anti-abortion.
Which programs are those? I'm sure that you must have a specific
allegation here, right?
It should be against the
On 4/30/05, JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 10:32 PM 4/26/2005 -0700, Nick Arnett wrote:
The same majority party that has been cutting the funding of programs
that
preserve the lives of children is also anti-abortion.
Which programs are those? I'm sure that you must have a specific
At 07:14 PM 4/30/2005 -0700, Doug wrote:
IncreasingO.k., child poverty is up since 2000-2001, but it is
remains down significantly from the levels of, oh, Bill Clinton's
Presidency.
Clinton was president in 2000.
And in 1996.Good enough to be re-elected in that year if I do
On Apr 25, 2005, at 7:21 PM, JDG wrote:
At 09:03 PM 4/24/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote:
On Apr 24, 2005, at 6:50 PM, JDG wrote:
To question at hand is whether it is moral to kill a [group of cells]
after conception. There are two possible arguments in favor of
this:
1) The [group of
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 22:21:00 -0400, JDG wrote
How is it that people who
are so quick to insist that every pregnancy result in a birth are so
quick to criticize and cut programs that would ensure that the births
they claim to care so much about result in healthy lives?
I know that this is a
At 07:38 AM 4/26/2005 -0700, Nick wrote:
How is it that people who
are so quick to insist that every pregnancy result in a birth are so
quick to criticize and cut programs that would ensure that the births
they claim to care so much about result in healthy lives?
I know that this is a
- Original Message -
From: JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 9:35 PM
Subject: Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
At 07:38 AM 4/26/2005 -0700, Nick wrote:
How is it that people who
are so quick to insist that every
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 23:10:42 -0500, Dan Minette wrote
Don't you remember them pushing to take Medicaid money out of Bush's
budget in order to pay for additional farm subsidies?
Unless we're farming babies, I can't figure out how this is relevant...?
Nick
From: Nick Arnett
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 23:10:42 -0500, Dan Minette wrote
Don't you remember them pushing to take Medicaid money out of Bush's
budget in order to pay for additional farm subsidies?
Unless we're farming babies, I can't figure out how this is relevant...?
Its relevant cos it
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 22:35:02 -0400, JDG wrote
At 07:38 AM 4/26/2005 -0700, Nick wrote:
How is it that people who
are so quick to insist that every pregnancy result in a birth are so
quick to criticize and cut programs that would ensure that the births
they claim to care so much about
On Wed, 27 Apr 2005 15:31:45 +1000, Andrew Paul wrote
From: Nick Arnett
On Tue, 26 Apr 2005 23:10:42 -0500, Dan Minette wrote
Don't you remember them pushing to take Medicaid money out of Bush's
budget in order to pay for additional farm subsidies?
Unless we're farming babies, I
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 06:11 PM Sunday 4/24/2005, JDG wrote:
At 11:59 AM 4/15/2005 -0400, Max wrote:
JDG wrote:
Let's connect the dots:
-human life begins at conception
This is scientifically debateable.
Really? This would require the [group of cells] to be something other
than human
On Apr 25, 2005, at 8:20 AM, Julia Thompson wrote:
Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 06:11 PM Sunday 4/24/2005, JDG wrote:
At 11:59 AM 4/15/2005 -0400, Max wrote:
JDG wrote:
Let's connect the dots:
-human life begins at conception
This is scientifically debateable.
Really? This would require the
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 09:45:25 -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote
Fratricide, infanticide and cannibalism are serious crimes. I say we
try the offender as an adult and don't hold back on the death
penalty if there's a guilty verdict.
That's only sensible, right?
If ever there were a message that
On Apr 25, 2005, at 9:52 AM, Nick Arnett wrote:
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 09:45:25 -0700, Warren Ockrassa wrote
Fratricide, infanticide and cannibalism are serious crimes. I say we
try the offender as an adult and don't hold back on the death
penalty if there's a guilty verdict.
That's only sensible,
Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Apr 25, 2005, at 8:20 AM, Julia Thompson wrote:
I know of someone who had had more than one baby the first time around
and was having an early ultrasound after she'd discovered she was
pregnant a second time. The first ultrasound revealed 2 fetuses, but
only 1
On Apr 25, 2005, at 10:28 AM, Julia Thompson wrote:
Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Apr 25, 2005, at 8:20 AM, Julia Thompson wrote:
I know of someone who had had more than one baby the first time
around
and was having an early ultrasound after she'd discovered she was
pregnant a second time. The first
Julia Thompson wrote:
Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Apr 25, 2005, at 8:20 AM, Julia Thompson wrote:
I know of someone who had had more than one baby the first time
around and was having an early ultrasound after she'd discovered
she was pregnant a second time. The first ultrasound revealed 2
At 09:03 PM 4/24/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote:
On Apr 24, 2005, at 6:50 PM, JDG wrote:
To question at hand is whether it is moral to kill a [group of cells]
after conception. There are two possible arguments in favor of this:
1) The [group of cells] is not human life.
2) It is acceptable to
At 11:59 AM 4/15/2005 -0400, Max wrote:
JDG wrote:
Let's connect the dots:
-human life begins at conception
This is scientifically debateable.
Really? This would require the [group of cells] to be something other
than human life between the meeting of the sperm and the egg, and the
At 06:11 PM Sunday 4/24/2005, JDG wrote:
At 11:59 AM 4/15/2005 -0400, Max wrote:
JDG wrote:
Let's connect the dots:
-human life begins at conception
This is scientifically debateable.
Really? This would require the [group of cells] to be something other
than human life between the meeting
At 07:07 PM 4/24/2005 -0500, Ronn! wrote:
-human life begins at conception
This is scientifically debateable.
Really? This would require the [group of cells] to be something other
than human life between the meeting of the sperm and the egg, and the
beginning of human life. During this
On 4/24/05, JDG [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At 07:07 PM 4/24/2005 -0500, Ronn! wrote:
-human life begins at conception
This is scientifically debateable.
Really? This would require the [group of cells] to be something other
than human life between the meeting of the sperm and the egg,
On Apr 24, 2005, at 6:50 PM, JDG wrote:
To question at hand is whether it is moral to kill a [group of cells]
after conception. There are two possible arguments in favor of this:
1) The [group of cells] is not human life.
2) It is acceptable to kill some human lives
Do we care about
On Apr 15, 2005, at 4:07 AM, JDG wrote:
-human life begins at conception
What about the 50% or so of all pregnancies that miscarry
spontaneously, some of them so early in the term that the woman doesn't
even realize she's pregnant at all?
Were those 50% of conceptions not human lives? Or do
On 4/18/05, Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 15, 2005, at 4:07 AM, JDG wrote:
-human life begins at conception
What about the 50% or so of all pregnancies that miscarry
spontaneously, some of them so early in the term that the woman doesn't
even realize she's pregnant at
On Apr 18, 2005, at 1:44 PM, Maru Dubshinki wrote:
But for damn sure
they are not in Heaven- 'No one can come to the father except through
me'? They certainly could never have received the Gospel.
Apparently you've not spoken with many Mormons on the subject. ;)
--
Warren Ockrassa,
On 4/18/05, Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 18, 2005, at 1:44 PM, Maru Dubshinki wrote:
But for damn sure
they are not in Heaven- 'No one can come to the father except through
me'? They certainly could never have received the Gospel.
Apparently you've not spoken with
At 03:44 PM Monday 4/18/2005, Maru Dubshinki wrote:
On 4/18/05, Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 15, 2005, at 4:07 AM, JDG wrote:
-human life begins at conception
What about the 50% or so of all pregnancies that miscarry
spontaneously, some of them so early in the term that
At 04:06 PM Monday 4/18/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Apr 18, 2005, at 1:44 PM, Maru Dubshinki wrote:
But for damn sure
they are not in Heaven- 'No one can come to the father except through
me'? They certainly could never have received the Gospel.
Apparently you've not spoken with many Mormons
At 04:23 PM Monday 4/18/2005, Maru Dubshinki wrote:
On 4/18/05, Warren Ockrassa [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Apr 18, 2005, at 1:44 PM, Maru Dubshinki wrote:
But for damn sure
they are not in Heaven- 'No one can come to the father except through
me'? They certainly could never have received
On Apr 18, 2005, at 2:50 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 04:06 PM Monday 4/18/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Apr 18, 2005, at 1:44 PM, Maru Dubshinki wrote:
But for damn sure
they are not in Heaven- 'No one can come to the father except through
me'? They certainly could never have received the
At 08:47 PM Monday 4/18/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Apr 18, 2005, at 2:50 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
At 04:06 PM Monday 4/18/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Apr 18, 2005, at 1:44 PM, Maru Dubshinki wrote:
But for damn sure
they are not in Heaven- 'No one can come to the father except through
- Original Message -
From: Ronn!Blankenship [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Killer Bs Discussion brin-l@mccmedia.com
Sent: Monday, April 18, 2005 9:44 PM
Subject: Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
At 08:47 PM Monday 4/18/2005, Warren Ockrassa wrote:
On Apr 18, 2005, at 2:50 PM, Ronn
On Apr 18, 2005, at 7:44 PM, Ronn!Blankenship wrote:
If you don't mind, were you BIC and reared in the Church
Heh! No, Born Free.
or did you join later, and if so, at about what age?
At about 12. Unfortunately for the church's membership rolls, my mental
development managed to proceed past that
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of JDG
Sent: Friday, April 15, 2005 1:07 PM
To: Killer Bs Discussion
Subject: Re: Abortion Cost-Benefit Analysis
There are people -- I'm assuming that JDG is one of them --
who believe
that abortion
At 02:08 PM 4/14/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote:
Nick:
I really don't mean to inflame things by asking, but would you apply
cost- benefit analysis to abortion? Is war really so different?
JDG:
No, as cost-benefit-analysis can never be used to justify an
intrinsicly
evil action. For
JDG wrote:
Let's connect the dots:
-human life begins at conception
This is scientifically debateable. My favorite passage on the
scientific thoughts about when human life actually begins is from Carl
Sagan. I don't have the book on hand or I would quote it.
You can debate that the early
55 matches
Mail list logo
